These generals were all set up and caught in the honey trap by Obama and his gang of marxist criminals, traitors, thugs, welfare maggots, communists who are afraid that they were going to tell the truth about Obama's treason in Libya. Obama was arming the local Jihadi's in a sort of Fast n Furious in Libya and Amb. Stevens stiffed a few locals who went to get revenge. The idea that this was over a video is as ludicrous and the stupid fucking mental patients who re-elected their God King Cult Messiah ObamaClaus.

A big purge is underway, General Ham was sacked and many others in the Naval Command are being fired as well.

It looks like Obama's second victory caused even more brain damage than the first oneHow many hours did you spend banging your head against the wall after you realized he won?

As they say in politics, timing is everything, and the shock resignation of David Petraeus as CIA director raises serious questions about whether this was genuinely a resignation caused by his affair with his biographer, or whether it was a hatchet job by Barack Obama's administration to prevent him giving evidence this Thursday to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The general's friends tell me that his sudden departure from Langley has nevertheless raised suspicions that his political enemies in the Obama administration – and there are many – used his dalliance to force him out of the CIA before he could make damaging allegations about the handling of the al-Qaeda attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi last September, in which US Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other staff died.

Gen Petraeus is a political animal – it was even rumoured that he might run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. The Obama crowd certainly saw him in those terms, which is why he was shunted off to the CIA in the first place, rather than being allowed to achieve his long-cherished ambition of becoming head of America's armed forces.

If Gen Petraeus harboured any thoughts of revenge, then Thursday's session of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the Benghazi killings offered him the perfect platform.

As CIA Director, Gen Petraeus would have all the details of who was responsible for this glaring security breach, and there were many senior members of the Obama administration who had good reason to silence him so they could save their own skins.

As they say in politics, timing is everything, and the shock resignation of David Petraeus as CIA director raises serious questions about whether this was genuinely a resignation caused by his affair with his biographer, or whether it was a hatchet job by Barack Obama's administration to prevent him giving evidence this Thursday to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The general's friends tell me that his sudden departure from Langley has nevertheless raised suspicions that his political enemies in the Obama administration – and there are many – used his dalliance to force him out of the CIA before he could make damaging allegations about the handling of the al-Qaeda attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi last September, in which US Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other staff died.

Gen Petraeus is a political animal – it was even rumoured that he might run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. The Obama crowd certainly saw him in those terms, which is why he was shunted off to the CIA in the first place, rather than being allowed to achieve his long-cherished ambition of becoming head of America's armed forces.

If Gen Petraeus harboured any thoughts of revenge, then Thursday's session of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the Benghazi killings offered him the perfect platform.

As CIA Director, Gen Petraeus would have all the details of who was responsible for this glaring security breach, and there were many senior members of the Obama administration who had good reason to silence him so they could save their own skins.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...

How does resigning prevent him from giving evidence?

Is there some rule that if he's not the CIA director that he can't testify?

As they say in politics, timing is everything, and the shock resignation of David Petraeus as CIA director raises serious questions about whether this was genuinely a resignation caused by his affair with his biographer, or whether it was a hatchet job by Barack Obama's administration to prevent him giving evidence this Thursday to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The general's friends tell me that his sudden departure from Langley has nevertheless raised suspicions that his political enemies in the Obama administration – and there are many – used his dalliance to force him out of the CIA before he could make damaging allegations about the handling of the al-Qaeda attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi last September, in which US Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other staff died.

Gen Petraeus is a political animal – it was even rumoured that he might run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. The Obama crowd certainly saw him in those terms, which is why he was shunted off to the CIA in the first place, rather than being allowed to achieve his long-cherished ambition of becoming head of America's armed forces.

If Gen Petraeus harboured any thoughts of revenge, then Thursday's session of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the Benghazi killings offered him the perfect platform.

As CIA Director, Gen Petraeus would have all the details of who was responsible for this glaring security breach, and there were many senior members of the Obama administration who had good reason to silence him so they could save their own skins.

If they can smear him and make him look like a dishonest cheat, they can say "Are you lying now like you did to your wife of 38 years?"

2 different things, but it would likely help. Yet there is still what he actually says and if he feels he was unjustly outted he may retaliate heavier which may be a miscalculation if there is a conspriacy by OB and co.

2 different things, but it would likely help. Yet there is still what he actually says and if he feels he was unjustly outted he may retaliate heavier which may be a miscalculation if there is a conspriacy by OB and co.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, listens during a recent House hearing. Chaffetz noted Tuesday that because the FBI would have needed a FISA Court warrant to access private email accounts, there is reason to wonder whether the emerging Petraeus-Allen sex scandal has national security implications. (Photo by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)

Was it merely about sex among married adults?

Cutting directly to the brass tacks of the FBI investigation that forced former CIA Director David Petraeus to retire leads one to the question. One senior House member says there is evidence that the unfolding scandal is about more.

The scandal now is threatening the military career of Marine Gen. James Allen, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, as well.

Petraeus resigned Friday (Nov. 9), citing an extramarital affair. The FBI over the summer began looking harassing emails sent by the woman with whom Petraeus was involved, Paula Broadwell, to another woman, Jill Kelley.

In a twist revealed early Tuesday (Nov. 13), Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced President Obama has frozen Allen’s nomination to become U.S. European Command because the FBI found potentially up to 30,000 pages of email correspondence between Allen and Kelley.

Talk radio and cable television have floated some wild conspiracy theories. But, mostly, lawmakers have used the same word as the rest of us when asked about the unfolding scandal: “Bizarre.”

The FBI concluded Petraeus had violated no criminal laws nor threatened U.S. national security.

So, the investigation was merely about a sexual relationship between a married CIA boss and his married biographer, and a potential relationship between a married Afghanistan war commander and a married Joint Special Operations Command unpaid social liaison (Kelley), right?

There is one big reason to think, until more is known, to the contrary, says a senior House Republican.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations subcommittee, noted Tuesday on CNN that to gain access to the private email accounts of those involved the FBI would have had to get a special warrant.

To get that warrant, the bureau would have had to go to the post-9/11 “FISA Court,” short for Foreign Intelligence Surviellance Court. It is largely used to aid federal investigators in national security-related probes.

The use of the FISA warrants, Chaffetz said during a morning interview, has him wonder if the investigation is about “something more” than simply generals allegedly behaving badly.